Movie Reviews

‘The Secret of Me’ Review: Illuminating and Compelling Doc Explores the Treatment of Intersex Children

Published

1 year ago

March 9, 2025

‘The Secret of Me’ Review: Illuminating and Compelling Doc Explores the Treatment of Intersex Children

At the center of The Secret of Me is Jim Ambrose, who grew up as Kristi. Looking into the camera as he begins to tell his story, he says, to be clear, that he is not transgender. He is intersex and was in the dark about that fact until he was 19 and discovered the truth: that he was born with male chromosomes and ambiguous genitalia but underwent surgery as an infant and was raised as a girl.

Grace Hughes-Hallett, directing her first feature, has created a lucid, absorbing film that uses Jim’s first-person account to reveal a much larger story about treating intersex children. The documentary lands as especially timely now, with the very idea of gender identity under right-wing attack.

The Secret of Me

The Bottom Line

Engrossing and eye-opening.

Venue: SXSW Film Festival (Documentary Feature Competition)
Director: Grace Hughes-Hallett

1 hour 20 minutes

Hughes-Hellett is a producer of Three Identical Strangers (2018) about triplets separated at birth as part of a social experiment, who only discovered their connection as adults. There are echoes of that film in The Secret of Me, in both its sharp, straightforward style and the theme of how such experiments can have devastating effects.

Like the subjects of Three Identical Strangers, Jim always sensed there was something off about his identity. He was in college in 1995 when, in a textbook, he read about John Money, a psychologist and once a respected, hugely influential researcher at Johns Hopkins. He saw himself in Money’s most famous case study, about treating twin boys. One twin was the victim of a botched circumcision, and Money told his parents to raise him as a girl. That child, David Reimer, grew up, troubled, as Brenda until learning the facts, and committed suicide as an adult in 2004.

Hughes-Hallett blends these two strands easily, interspersing Jim’s experience with interviews and archival footage about Money. Jim is an excellent choice to lead viewers through the film, someone who now seems comfortable in his own skin. His demeanor is calm, direct and earnest. After reading of Money’s case, he got his medical records and learned that he had been born with a penis below what is considered normal size, and that his parents were advised to allow the surgery and never tell him about it. He frequently refers to the operation as mutilation and sees the treatment as a double injury, the surgery compounded by his parents’ deception.

In archival footage, his parents explain that they were following the best medical advice they had and acknowledge his anger at them. In an interview for this film, Jim recalls his thoughts at the time: “You cut my genitals out. What did you think was going to happen?” It took a double mastectomy and removal of a constructed vagina, surgeries his parents approved when he was an adolescent, for him to feel like himself.

The treatment his parents agreed to was straight from the Money playbook. He insisted that gender was a matter of socialization, and that raising David as Brenda would mean he accepted himself as Brenda. Keeping the truth from the children was part of his prescribed treatment, which was followed in thousands of cases around the world, largely because he wrote articles falsely claiming that Brenda was a perfectly happy child. The film includes brief archival footage of the adult David, furious that Money’s lies about him had been so widely accepted. “I was appalled, disgusted and angry when I heard about it. People thought that my case was a success story? There was nothing further from the truth,” he says.

The documentary includes a few talking heads, all relevant and smoothly edited in. They include Tiger Devore, an activist and psychologist who is intersex and was once Money’s intern, and John Colapinto, a journalist who interviewed David and exposed Money’s deceptions in a 1997 Rolling Stone story.

The music is a minor misstep, jarring throughout, with a tinkly piano at the start and suspenseful notes when Colapinto is searching for some old files. It’s a more serous flaw that the film is framed around Jim’s wish to confront Dr. Richard Carter, who performed the surgery when he was an infant. At the end of the film they meet in a coffee shop in a scene too obviously orchestrated for the cameras. Carter apologizes and Jim seems satisfied that at least they’ve talked. What is meant to be climactic is an anti-climax. Worse, it plays as gimmicky, undercutting Jim’s obvious sincerity.

At its best, which is most of the time, The Secret of Me is strong enough not to need anything that artificial. The events and their consequences are powerful enough.

Related Topics:Grace Hughes-Hallett South by Southwest SXSW SXSW 2025 SXSW Reviews Three Identical Strangers

Click to comment

Movie Reviews

Dan Webster reviews “WTO/99”

Published

11 hours ago

March 10, 2026

Press Room

DAN WEBSTER:

It may now seem like ancient history, especially to younger listeners, but it was only 26 years ago when the streets of Seattle were filled with protesters, police and—ultimately—scenes of what ended up looking like pure chaos.

It is those scenes—put together to form a portrait of what would become known as the “Battle of Seattle” —that documentary filmmaker Ian Bell captures in his powerful documentary feature WTO/99.

We’ve seen any number of documentaries over the decades that report on every kind of social and cultural event from rock concerts to war. And the majority of them follow a typical format: archival footage blended with interviews, both with participants and with experts who provide an informational, often intellectual, perspective.

WTO/99 is something different. Like The Perfect Neighbor, a 2026 Oscar-nominated documentary feature, Bell’s film consists of what could be called found footage. What he has done is amass a series of news reports and personal video recordings into an hour-and-42-minute collection of individual scenes, mostly focused on a several-block area of downtown Seattle.

That is where a meeting of the WTO, the World Trade Organization, was set to be held between Nov. 30 and Dec. 3, 1999. Delegates from around the world planned to negotiate trade agreements (what else?) at the Washington State Convention and Trade Center.

Months before the meeting, however, a loose coalition of groups—including NGOs, labor unions, student organizations and various others—began their own series of meetings. Their objective was to form ways to protest not just the WTO but, to some of them, the whole idea of a world order they saw as a threat to the economic independence of individual countries.

Bell’s film doesn’t provide much context for all this. What we mostly see are individuals arguing their points of view as they prepare to stop the delegates from even entering the convention center. Meanwhile, Seattle authorities such as then-Mayor Paul Schell and then-Police Chief Norm Stamper—with brief appearances by Gov. Gary Locke and King County Executive Ron Sims—discuss counter measures, with Schell eventually imposing a curfew.

That decision comes, though, after what Bell’s film shows is a peaceful protest evolving into a street fight between people parading and chanting, others chained together and splinter groups intent on smashing the storefronts of businesses owned by what they see as corporate criminals. One intense scene involves a young woman begging those breaking windows to stop and asking them why they’re resorting to violence. In response a lone voice yells their reasoning: “Self-defense.”

Even more intense, though, are the actions of the Seattle police. We see officers using pepper spray, tear gas, flash grenades and other “non-lethal” means such as firing rubber pellets into the crowd. In one scene, a uniformed guy—not identified as a police officer but definitely part of the security crowd, which included National Guardsmen—is shown kicking a guy in the crotch.

The media, too, can’t avoid criticism. Though we see broadcast reporters trying to capture what was happening—with some affected like everybody else by the tear gas that filled the streets like a winter fog—the reports they air seem sketchy, as if they’re doctors trying to diagnose a serious illness by focusing on individual cells. And the images they capture tend to highlight the violence over the well-meaning actions of the vast majority of protesters.

Reactions to what Bell has put on the screen are bound to vary, based on each viewer’s personal politics. Bell revels his own stance by choosing selectively from among thousands of hours of video coverage to form the narrative he feels best captures what happened those two decades-and-change ago.

If nothing else, WTO/99 does reveal a more comprehensive picture of what happened than we got at the time. And, too, it should prepare us for the future. The way this country is going, we’re bound to see a lot more of the same.

Call it the “Battle for America.”

For Spokane Public Radio, I’m Dan Webster.

——

Movies 101 host Dan Webster is the senior film critic for Spokane Public Radio.

Movie Reviews

Movie Review: ‘Scream 7’ – Catholic Review

Published

24 hours ago

March 9, 2026

Press Room

Movie Review: ‘Scream 7’ – Catholic Review

NEW YORK (OSV News) – As its title suggests, “Scream 7” (Paramount) is the latest extension of a long-lived horror franchise, one that’s currently approaching its 30th anniversary on screen. Since each chapter of this slasher saga has been a bloodsoaked mess, the series’ longevity will strike moviegoers of sense as inexplicable.

Yet the slog continues. While the previous film in the sequence shifted the action from California to New York, this second installment, following a 2022 quasi-reboot, settles on a Midwestern locale and reintroduces us to the series’ original protagonist, Sidney Evans, nee Prescott (Neve Campbell).

Having aged out of the adolescent demographic on whom the various murderers who have donned the Ghostface mask that serves as these films’ dubious trademark over the years seem to prefer to prey, Sidney comes equipped with a teen daughter, Tatum (Isabel May). Will Tatum prove as resourceful in evading the unwanted attentions of Ghostface as Mom has?

On the way to answering that question, a clutch of colorless minor characters fall victim to the killer, who sometimes gets — according to his or her lights — creative. Thus one is quite literally made to spill her guts, while another ends up skewered on a barroom’s pointy beer tap.

Through it all, director Kevin Williamson and his co-writer Guy Busick try to peddle a theme of female empowerment in the face of mortal danger. They also take a stab, as it were, at constructing a plotline about intergenerational family tensions. When not jarring viewers with grisly images, however, they’re only likely to lull them into a stupor.

The film contains excessive gory violence, including disembowelment and impaling, underage drinking, mature topics, a couple of profanities, several milder oaths, pervasive rough and considerable crude language and occasional crass expressions. The OSV News classification is O — morally offensive. The Motion Picture Association rating is R — restricted. Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian.

Movie Review: “THE BRIDE!” – Assignment X

Published

1 day ago

March 9, 2026

Press Room

Movie Review: “THE BRIDE!” – Assignment X

By ABBIE BERNSTEIN / Staff Writer

Posted: March 8th, 2026 / 08:00 PM

Rating: R
Stars: Jessie Buckley, Christian Bale, Annette Bening, Jake Gyllenhaal, Peter Sarsgaard, Penelope Cruz, Jeannie Berlin, Zlatko Burić
Writer: Maggie Gyllenhaal, based on characters created by Mary Shelley and William Hurlbut and John Balderston
Director: Maggie Gyllenhaal
Distributor: Warner Bros.
Release Date: March 6, 2026

“THE BRIDE!” (as with the recent “WUTHERING HEIGHTS,” the quotation marks are part of the title) is awash in homages, and not just the ones we might reasonably expect in a movie that takes its most obvious inspiration from 1935’s BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN.

There’s that, of course, plus its source, Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel FRANKENSTEIN; OR THE MODERN PROMETHEUS, and its sober 1931 film adaptation FRANKENSTEIN. But there are also big nods to wilder takes on the legend, including YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN and THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW and even movies that have nothing to do with FRANKENSTEIN, like BONNIE AND CLYDE.

Writer/director Maggie Gyllenhaal casts a wide net in metaphors and ideas and looks. Sometimes “THE BRIDE!” is a comedy, sometimes it’s a crime drama, sometimes it’s a love story, occasionally, it’s even a musical.

Mary Shelley (Jessie Buckley) narrates the tale to us from beyond the grave. She is haughty and naughty, intoxicated by verbiage and her own literary genius. She is going to tell us a story, she says, that she didn’t even dare imagine while alive.

We’re in 1930s Chicago, where a young escort (also Buckley) is having a really awful evening out at a fancy restaurant with some of her peers and a bunch of crass gangsters. Shelley dubs the woman “Ida” and takes possession of her, causing her to speak and act in ways that get her escorted outside. There she stumbles and takes a fatal fall.

The two goons who were with Ida are happy to describe her tumble as the result of their intentional actions to their horrible gangster boss (Zlatko Burić). Ida was suspected of talking to the cops.

Around the same time, Frankenstein’s creation (Christian Bale) – let’s just call him “Frank,” like everybody else does – comes to Chicago to seek out the groundbreaking scientist Dr. Euphronious (Annette Bening), whose published works he has read.

Frank wants the doctor to create a companion for him. His appearance is unusual, but the most alarming injuries are covered by clothing, so he’s not as extreme-looking as, say, Boris Karloff in the role. This isn’t about sex, Frank explains when Euphronious asks why he doesn’t just hire a prostitute. After over a century of loneliness, he seeks a soulmate, and he is sure this can only be achieved by reviving a corpse.

So, Euphronious and Frank dig up the grave that turns out to belong to Ida (we never do learn how they know it belongs to a soulmate candidate as opposed to a shot-and-dumped male gangster). Euphronius revives her. Ida remembers how to walk and talk, but not who she is or what happened, so Frank and the doc tell her she’s been in an accident.

Even without Ida’s beauty, Frank is already devoted to the very notion of her. A more accommodating suitor would be hard to find. Frank has another passion, the musical films of Ronnie Reed (Jake Gyllenhaal, the filmmaker’s brother), a Fred Astaire-like star. Frank imagines himself in the midst of those dance routines, and we get some more within “THE BRIDE!”’s “real” action.

One thing leads to another, Frank and Ida go on the run, leaving a trail of bodies in their wake. They are pursued all over the country. Among those seeking them are sad-eyed police detective Jake Wiles (Peter Sarsgaard) and his secretary Myrna Mallow (Penélope Cruz), who’s better at this whole crime-solving business than he is.

It’s all very kaleidoscopic and energetic, occasionally impressive and sometimes very funny. Bening as the frazzled, worldly Euphronious has some great moments. Buckley, currently and justifiably Oscar-nominated leading performance in HAMNET, juggles the very unalike personas of Mary and Ida with impact.

Oddly, Bale underplays Frank. We get that he is trying his hardest not to spook Ida (or anyone else), but it seems like he should have a bit more spark. Cruz, going for a snappy ‘30s working woman, has her own style that works.

But in addition to being entertaining and eye-catching, Gyllenhaal has a message that gets very muddled. This is less because it’s so familiar by now that it feels a little redundant, and more because a crucial part of the set-up collides head-on with the feminist slant.

Ida seeks to be her own person, but she is literally bodily controlled by Mary Shelley, who puts her creation in danger with her outbursts. This may help get Ida out of the clutches of the mob, but it is possession, the aftereffects of which the character understandably finds confusing and upsetting.

If Gyllenhaal wanted to discuss or dramatize the clash between what Mary, as a woman, is doing to this other woman, that would make sense, but it seems we’re just meant to somehow overlook this while being immersed in how men control women. The resulting cognitive dissonance adds another layer to a movie that already has more than it can comfortably service.

Additionally, when Mary has one of her outbursts while inhabiting Ida, the plot comes to a screeching halt until she’s finished. Many viewers will wish Mary would stop declaiming and just let Ida be herself.

“THE BRIDE!” succeeds in being trippy and some of it is memorable. By the end, though, it is more disjointed than even a movie about experiments and a character made up of multiple people’s body parts ought to be.

Related: Movie Review: NFT: CURSED IMAGESRelated: Movie Review: SCREAM 7
Related: Movie Review: OPERATION TACO GARY’S
Related: Movie Review: ANACORETA
Related: Movie Review: THIS IS NOT A TEST
Related: Movie Review: GHOST TRAIN
Related: Movie Review: COLD STORAGE
Related: Movie Review: THE HAUNTED FOREST
Related: Movie Review: “WUTHERING HEIGHTS”
Related: Movie Review: THE MORTUARY ASSISTANT
Related: Movie Review: THE STRANGERS: CHAPTER 3
Related: Movie Review: PILLION
Related: Movie Review: JIMPA
Related: Movie Review: ISLANDS
Related: Movie Review: WORLDBREAKER
Related: Movie Review: MOTHER OF FLIES
Related: Movie Review: 28 YEARS LATER: THE BONE TEMPLE
Related: Movie Review: NIGHT PATROL
Related: Movie Review: THE CONFESSION (2026)
Related: Movie Review: WE BURY THE DEAD
Related: Movie Review: ANACONDA
Related: Movie Review: AVATAR: FIRE AND ICE
Related: Movie Review: IS THIS THING ON?
Related: Movie Review: MANOR OF DARKNESS
Related: Movie Review: DUST BUNNY